Terence; which, together, enable us to conclude very fully, in opposition to the general sentiment, that ridicule is not of the essence of comedyb.

But, because the general practice of the Greek and Roman theatres, which strongly countenance the other opinion, may still be thought to outweigh this single Latin poet, together with all the eastern and western barbarians, that can be thrown into the balance, let me go one step further, and, by explaining the rise and occasion of this practice, demonstrate, that, in the present case, their authority is, in fact, of no moment.

The form of the Greek, from whence the Roman and our drama is taken, though generally improved by reflexion and just criticism, yet, like so many other great inventions, was, in its original, the product of pure chance. Each of its species had sprung out of a chorussong, which was afterwards incorporated into the legitimate drama, and found essential to its true form. But reason, which saw to

h LE RIDICULE EST CE QU'IL Y A DE PLUS ESSENTIEL A LA COMEDIE. [P. RAPIN, REFLEX, SUR LA POES. p. 154. PARIS 1684.]

establish what was right in this fortuitous conformation of the drama, did not equally succeed in detecting and separating what was wrong. For the occasion of this chorus-song, in their religious festivities, was widely different: the business at one time, being to express their gratitude, in celebrating the praises of their gods and heroes; at another, to indulge their mirth, in jesting and sporting among themselves. The character of their drama, which had its rise from hence, i conformed exactly to the difference of these occa

*

1 Οἱ μὲν (εμνότεροι τὰς καλὰς ἐμιμᾶνιο πράξεις, καὶ τὰς τῶν τοιέτων τύχας· οἱ δὲ εὐτελέσεροι, τὰς τῶν φαύλων, ΠΡΩΤΟΝ ΨΟΓΟΥΣ ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ, ΩΣΠΕΡ ΕΤΕΡΟΙ ΥΜΝΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΚΩΜΙΑ. [IЕР. ПOIHT. xd.] This is Aristotle's account of the origin of the different species of POETRY. They were occasioned, he says, by the different and even opposite tempers and dispositions of men: those of a loftier spirit delighting in the encomiastic poetry, while the humbler sort betook themselves to satire. But this, also, is the just account of the rise and character of the different species of the DRAMA. For they grew up, he tells us in this very chapter, from the DITHYRAMBIC, and PHALLIC songs, And who were the men, who chaunted these, but the ZEMNOTEPOI, and EYTEAEETEPOI, before-mentioned? And how were they employed in them, but the former, in hymning the praises of Bacchus; the latter, in dealing about obscene jokes and taunting invectives on each other? So that the characters of the men, and their subjects, being exactly

sions. Tragedy, through all its several successive stages of improvement, was serious and even solemn. And a gay or rather buffoon spirit was the characteristic of comedy.

We see, then, the genius of these two poems was accidentally fixed in agreement to their respective originals; consequent writer's contenting themselves to embellish and perfect, not change, the primary form. The practice of the ancient stage is then of no further authority, than as it accords to just criticism, The solemn cast of their tragedy, indeed, bears the test, and is found to be suitable to its real nature. The same does not appear of the burlesque form of comedy; no reason having been given, why it must, of necessity, have the ridiculous for its object. Nay the effects of improved criticism on the later Greek comedy give a presumption of the direct contrary. For, in proportion to the gradual refinement of this species in the hands of its

the same in both, what is said of the one is equally applicable to the other. It was proper to observe this, or the reader might, perhaps, object to the use made of this passage, here, as well as above, where it is brought to illustrate Aristotle's notion of the natures of the tragic and comic poetry.

greatest masters, the buffoon cast of the comic drama was insensibly dropt and even grew into a severity, which departed at length very widely from the original idea. The admirable scholar of THEOPHRASTUS, who had been tutored in the exact study of human life, saw so much of the genuine character of true comedy, that he cleansed it, at once, from the greater part of those buffoonries, which had, till his time, defiled its nature. His great imitator, Terence, went still further; and, whether impelled by his native humour, or determined by his truer taste, mixed so little of the ridiculous in his comedy, as plainly shews, it might, in bis opinion, subsist entirely without it. His practice indeed, and the theory, here delivered, nearly meet. And the conclusion is, that comedy, which is the image of private life, may take either character of pleasant or serious, as it chances, or even unite them into one piece; but that the former is, by no means, more essential to its constitution, than the latter.

. I

I foresee but one objection, that can be made to this theory; which has, in effect, been obviated already. "It may be said, that, "if this account of comedy be just, it would "follow, that it might, with equal propriety,

"admit the gravest and most affecting events, “which inferior life furnishes, as the lightest. "Whereas it is notorious, that distresses of a deep and solemn nature, though faithfully "copied from the fortunes of private men, "would never be endured, under the name of "comedy, on the stage. Nay, such repre

7

:1

"sentations would rather pass, in the public judgment, for legitimate tragedies; of which "kind, we have, indeed, some examples in our language."

Two things are mistaken in this objection. First, it supposes, that deep distresses of every kind are inconsistent with comedy; the contrary of which may be learnt from the SELF-TORMENTOR of Terence. Next, it insinuates, that, if deep distresses of any kind may be admitted into comedy, the deepest may. Which is equally erroneous. For the munners being the proper object of comedy, the distress must not exceed a certain degree of severity, lest it draw off the mind from them, and confine it to the action only as would be the case of murder, adultery, and other atrocious crimes, infesting private, as well as public, life, were they to be represented, in all their horrors, on the stage. And though some of these, as adultery, have