which is essential to it. To deviate from this, is to deviate from
Nature it self. Mr. _de la Bruyere_ is not the only _French_ Man who
is guilty in this Point. Others of his Country-Men have committed much
the same Fault in Pastoral and Comedy. Out of a vain Affectation of
saying something very extraordinary and remarkable, they have departed
from the nature of Things: They have given to the Simplicity of the
Country, the Airs of the Town and Court, introduced upon the Stage
Buffoonry and Farce instead of Humour; and by misrepresenting the real
Manners of Men, they have turn’d Nature into Grimace.
The main Beauty of _Characteristic-Writings_ consists in a certain
Life and Spirit, which the Writer ought to endeavour to keep up, by
all the Arts which he is Master of. Nothing will contribute to this
more, than the Observance of a strict Unity in the very Conception of
a Character: For Characters are Descriptions of Persons and Things, as
they are such: And, as [O]Mr. _Budgell_ has very judiciously observ’d,
“If the Reader is diverted in the midst of a Character, and his
Attention call’d off to any thing foreign to it, the lively Impression
it shou’d have made is quite broken, and it loses more than half its
Force.” But if this Doctrine be applied to the Practice of Mr. _de la
Bruyere_, it will find him Guilty. He sometimes runs his Characters
to so great a Length, and mixes in ’em so many Particulars and
unnecessary Circumstances, that they justly deserve the Name, rather
of Histories than Characters.--Such is the [P]Article concerning
_Emira_. ’Tis an artful Description of a Woman’s Vanity, in pretending
to be insensible to the Power of Love, merely because she has never
been exposed to the Charms of a lovely Person; and there is nothing in
this Character, but what is agreeable to Nature, and carried on with a
great deal of Humour. But the many Particulars which Mr. _de la
Bruyere_ has drawn into the Composition of it, and which, in Truth,
are not essential to the main Design, have quite chang’d the Nature of
the Character, and converted it into a History, or rather a little
Romance.--’Tis true, Histories are Pictures as well as Characters; but
yet there will ever be as wide a Difference between ’em, as there is
between 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. And
they are allow’d to be kept within the just Bounds of Probability. But
Mr. _de la Bruyere_ has heap’d up so many Particulars and unnecessary
Circumstances, which do not convey any new Ideas, that the Characters
grow languid and tedious.--_Giton_ is respected; every thing that he
says or does is approved of. _Phebon_ is despis’d; no Notice is taken
of what he says or does. The Reason of this Difference is not so
mysterious, 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 the
Character of a particular Person, or to make a Picture of some
prevailing Vice, or only a moral Reflexion.--Such is the [R]Article of
_Zenobia_. Was it design’d for the Character of _Zenobia_? But ’tis
rather a Description of the Magnificence, and beautiful Situation of
the Palace, which she was then building. Or was it design’d to censure
and lash the Publicans of the Age, for the Extortions which they
practis’d, and the immense Riches which they amass’d by Fraud and
Oppression? But this Satir comes in only by the by, and in a very
jejune Manner. Or lastly, was it intended only for a moral Reflexion
on the sudden Revolutions and Vicissitudes of Fortune? But the Length
of this Article is inconsistent with the nature of a Reflexion; and if
any 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 thing
that has yet been mentioned.
[R: C. des Biers de Fortune. sub fin.]
’Tis not enough that a Character be drawn conformable to that
Existence which it really has, or probably may have in Nature: It must
further be cloath’d in proper Sentiments, and express’d in a simple
and natural Style. But Mr. _de la Bruyere_, consider’d as a Writer of
Characters, is too affected in his way of Thinking, and too artificial
in the Turn of his Expressions.
The previous Apology which he made for himself in this Point, is so
far 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 Title
περὶ παροιμιῶν concerning _Proverbs_: But that, probably, was nothing
but a Collection of some of those short, remarkable, useful, pithy
Sayings, which are of common Use in the World, and which every Nation
has peculiar to it self. However, tho’ we cannot exactly tell, what the
Nature of that Performance was, because the Book is now lost, yet we are
certain, on the other Hand, that the Design of _Solomon_ was not to
write Characters, but to deliver some Maxims of Morality by way of
Advice 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 any
one, who intended to compose an Oration, shou’d form his Diction upon a
Poem. _Proverbs_ consist of short Sentences, which contain in themselves
a full and compleat Sense; and therefore they do not essentially require
a strict Relation and Correspondence; but _Characteristic-Writings_
do require such a strict Relation and Correspondence. And Mr. _de la
Bruyere_ is so faulty in this Point, that almost every where he has no
visible Connexion. --_Characteristic-Writings_ ought, I own, to have a
lively Turn, and a Laconic Air: but there is a wide Difference between
using a concise Manner, and writing as many Aphorisms as
Sentences.
[S: Discours sur _Theophraste_.]
[T: Lib. 5. Segm. 45.]
How far Mr. _de la Bruyere_ is defective as to Propriety of Style and
Justness 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 this
Matter 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’d
Name of _Vigneul Marville_, has pass’d upon Mr. _de la Bruyere’s_
Style. However, I think my self oblig’d in Justice to inform the
Reader, that Mr. _Coste_, in his Defence of Mr. _de la Bruyere_, has
endeavour’d to prove that this Censure is ill grounded. But I will not
pretend to decide in a Case of this Nature. Matters relating to Style
are the nicest Points in Learning: The greatest Men have grosly err’d
on 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 improper
for Characteristic Writings. Several ingenious _French_ Gentlemen, who
have themselves writ with Applause in this Language, entertain the
same Sentiments, and have ingenuously confess’d to me, that they could
never read ten Pages together of Mr. _de la Bruyere_, without feeling
such an Uneasiness and Pain, as arises from a continued Affectation
and a perpetual Constraint. But the Reader is still left free. To form
a right Judgment on Correctness is an easy Matter by the ordinary
Rules of Grammar, but to do the same concerning the Turn and Air, and
peculiar Beauties of Style, depends on a particular Taste: They are
not capable of being prov’d to those who have not this Taste, but to
those who have it, they are immediately made sensible by a bare
pointing out.
The running Title which Mr. _de la Bruyere_ has given to his Book
does, by no Means, square with the several Parts of it. With Relation
to my present Purpose I observe, that, strictly speaking, this
Performance is, but in Part, of the Characteristic-Kind. The
Characters, which are interspers’d in it, being reducible to a very
narrow Compass, and the main Body of it consisting of miscellaneous
Reflexions. And these are not confin’d, as is pretended, only to the
present Age, but extend themselves both to past and present Times. So
that if Mr. _de la Bruyere_ had, with his View, chosen another Title
for his Book, tho’ it wou’d not have been so uncommon, yet wou’d it
have been more proper than the present Title; and the Performance it
self wou’d then, in some Measure, have less deserv’d
Censure.
Tho’ Mr. _de la Bruyere’s_ Work is not perfect in that Kind, in which
it is pretended to excel, it must nevertheless be confess’d, that it
has many Beauties and Excellencies. To deny this, wou’d be an Affront
to the Judgment of the Gentlemen of the _French_ Academy: But yet our
Complaisance ought not, cannot go so far, as to prejudice our own
Judgment. We cannot think, as [X]some of ’em did, that Mr. _de la
Bruyere_ has excell’d _Theophrastus_, the great Original which he
propos’d to himself. Mr. _de la Bruyere_ had a more modest Opinion
of himself: He wou’d have been proud of the Title of _little
Theophrastus_. And in Truth, it deserves no small Share of Praise, to
come up to _Theophrastus_ in any Degree of Comparison.--If then Mr.
_de la Bruyere_ has committed some Faults, ’tis nothing but what
others have done, both before and since him: But if he has, as I have
already allow’d him to have, some considerable Beauties; ’tis more
than a great many other Authors have, tho’ of greater Bulk: And these
Excellencies ought in Justice to be admitted as some Excuse for those
Defects.
[X: Discours de l’Abbé Fleury deja cité.]
SECT. V.
Theophrastus has not only prevented, but he has also out-done the
Moderns in _Characteristic-Writings_. Yet Mr. _de la Rochefoucault_
had an extraordinary Genius. He seems to be the only one, amongst
all the Moderns, who was equal to so great a Work. He had studied Man
in himself; and, in a small Collection of moral Reflexions, he has
laid open the various Forms and Folds of that Heart, which by Nature
is deceitful above all Things. He has given us, as it were, the
Characters of all Mankind, by discovering those secret Springs of Self
Love, which are the Source of all our _Actions_.--Self Love is born
with us; and this great Author has shewn, that there is no Principle
in human Nature so secret, so deceitful: ’Tis so Hypocritical, that it
frequently imposes on it self, by taking the Appearances of Virtue for
Virtue it self. It borrows all the Disguises of Art: It appears in a
thousand Forms, and in a thousand Shapes; but yet the Principle of
Error 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 his
Piece cannot properly be reckoned among _Characteristic-Writings_. But
tho’ he did not professedly write Characters, yet this Work shews that
he was very able to do it; and it may be of very great Service to
those, who wou’d attempt any thing in this Kind.
I have often wonder’d that no _English_ Writer has ever professedly
attempted a Performance in the Characteristic-Way. I mean, such a
profess’d Performance, as wou’d extend it self to the different
Conditions of Men, and describe the various Ends which they propose to
themselves in Life; as wou’d take in the chief Branches of Morality
and Behaviour, and, in some Measure, make a compleat Work: For as to
loose Attempts and Sketches in this Kind, there are many Years since
we had some; the most considerable of which, I mean of those that bear
the Title of Characters, are printed together with Sir _Thomas
Overbury_’s Wife. These are said to have been written, partly by that
unfortunate Knight, and partly by some of his Friends. And if the
Editor had not taken Care to give us this Notice, yet still that great
Disparity which appears but too visibly in them, wou’d manifestly
prove that they were compos’d by very different Hands.--There are,
I confess, many good Things to be met with in these Characters, but
they are very far from making a compleat Work: And really this was not
intended. Besides, nothing can possibly be more contrary to the Nature
of _Characteristic-Writings_, than the corrupted Taste which prevail’d
in the Age. A continued Affectation of far-fetch’d 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.
This Censure may be thought hard; but yet it leaves Room for some
Exceptions: And that I may do Justice to Merit, where it is really
due, I shall here set down one of those Characters, which seem’d to me
to be exquisite in its Kind. And this I shall the rather do, because
the Book it self is not in every body’s Hands. The Image is taken from
low Life; ’tis a beautiful Description of Nature in its greatest
Simplicity, 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 a
profess’d Performance in the _Characteristic-Way_ is, that we are,
certainly, more able to undertake a Work of this Nature than any other
Nation; because our Countrymen afford a greater Variety of Subject
Matter than any other People.--Human Nature, as I observ’d before, in
its various Forms and Affections, is the Subject of _Characteristic-
Writings_: And from this Diversity of Manners arises that, which is
properly call’d _Humour_, and which, upon a double Account, seems to
be peculiar to our Nation; not only because there is no Word in any
other Language so expressive, but also because there is no Nation, in
which we can find a greater Variety of original _Humour_, than amongst
the _English_. Sir _William Temple_, speaking of the Dramatic
Performances of the Stage, expresses himself after the following
Manner.--[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 of
original Characters, which is so entertaining to a Spectator and
Reader: And Sir _William Temple_ proceeds to observe, that in this
Point the Moderns in general, and the _English_ in particular, have
far excell’d the Antients. This Observation is very just, however
partial it may seem to a Foreigner, and the Reason of it is very
obvious. I shall represent ’em both in Sir _William_’s own Words. The
Passage is somewhat long, but the Goodness of it will amply pay the
Reader 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_ have
shewn the Richness of this Source: They excell’d in the Variety and
_Humour_ of the Characters which they exhibited; and in this they have
receiv’d just Applauses: But yet they did not exhaust the Spring from
whence they drew: The ingenious Mr. _Congreve_ has pursu’d the same
Vein of _Humour_; and he has imitated his Predecessors so well, that
he has by far out-done ’em all. In his Dramatic-Pieces there is the
greatest Variety of _Humour_ and of original Characters, set off by
the greatest Delicacy of Sentiments, and adorn’d with the Beauties of
the justest Diction that can possibly be imagined. Mr. _Dryden_ must
be allow’d to be a competent Judge in an Affair of this Nature, and he
has given us the true Character and Panegyric of Mr. _Congreve_ in the
following 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 which
enter into the Composition of Dramatic Pieces, and those which are
represented by _Characteristic-Writers_; but this Difference is so
small, that I doubt not but he, who is an able Master in one of these
Kinds, 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 one
Life; a Representation of one Person: All the Diversity lies 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: And both must be perform’d in such a natural and lively
manner, as may deceive the Spectator and Reader, and make them fancy
they 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 had
excellent Specimens in the Characteristic-Way. The Papers, which I
mean to point out, are the _Tatlers_ and the _Spectators_. They are of
the miscellaneous Kind, and were design’d for the universal Delight
and Instruction of the _British_ Nation. In these Papers are contained
Abundance of true Wit and _Humour_, lively Descriptions of human
Nature in its various Forms and Disguises, the Praises of Virtue,
and pointed Satir against Vice; and here and there are interspers’d
Characters of Men and Manners compleatly drawn to the Life.--If the
great Authors, who were concerned in the Composition of those Papers,
would have join’d their Abilities to form a Work of this Kind, I doubt
not but it would have been inimitable, and deserv’d the next Place,
in Point of Fame, to that of _Theophrastus_: For this is the highest
Pitch to which Moderns can aspire. A greater Design would be
Presumption, and would only serve to shew the greater Vanity of the
Attempt. An establish’d Reputation of above two thousand Years cannot
be easily shaken. _Theophrastus_ is, and ever will be, an Original in
_Characteristic-Writings_. His Fame still lives in our Memory, and the
Main 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 Project
Gutenberg. 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)