ness of the dramatic art in his time. He has too much low wit and scurrility; and is by far too quaint and full of conceit. He has more variety and more force than Terence; and his characters are strongly marked, though sometimes coarsely.

Terence is polished, delicate, and elegant. His style is a model of the most pure and graceful latinity. His dialogue is always correct and decent; and his relations have a picturesque and beautiful simplicity. His morrality is in general unexceptionable; his situations are interesting; and many of his sentiments touch the heart. He may be considered as the founder of serious comedy. In sprightliness and strength he is deficient. There is a sameness in his characters and plots; and he is said to have been inferior to Meander, whom he copied. To form a perfect comic author, the spirit and fire of Plautus ought to be united with the grace and correctness of Terence.

SPANISH COMEDY.

THE most prominent object in modern comedy is the Spanish theatre. The chief comedians of Spain are Lopez de Vega, Guillen and Calderon. The first, who is the most famous of them, wrote above a thousand plays; and was infinitely more irregular than Shakespeare. He totally disregarded the three unities, and every established rule of dramatic writing. One play often includes many years, and even the whole life of a man. The scene, during the first act, is in Spain; the next in Italy; and the third in Africa. His plays are chiefly historical, and are a mixture of heroic speeches, serious incidents, war and slaughter, ridicule and buffoonery. He jumbles together christianity and paganism, virtues and vices, angels and gods Notwithstanding his faults, he possessed genius and great force of imagination. Many of his characters are well painted; many of his situations are happy; and from the

source of his rich invention, dramatic writers of other nations have frequently drawn their materials. He was conscious himself of his extreme irregularities, and apologized for them from the prevailing taste of his countrymen.

FRENCH COMEDY.

THE comic theatre of France is allowed to be correct, chaste, and decent. The comic author in whom the French glory most is Moliere. In the judgment of French critics he has nearly reached the summit of perfection in his art. Nor is this the decision of mere partiality. Moliere is the satirist only of vice and folly. His characters were peculiar to his own times; and in general his ridicule was justly directed. His comic powers were great; and his pleasantry is always innocent. His Misanthrope and Tartuffe are in verse, and constitute a kind of dignified comedy, in which vice is exposed in the style of elegant and polite satire. In his prose comedies their is a profusion of ridicule ; but the poet never gives alarm to modesty, nor casts contempt on virtue. With these high qualities, however, considerable defects are mingled. In unravelling his plots, he is unhappy; as this is frequently brought on with too little preparation, and in an improbable manner. In his verse comedies he is not always sufficiently interesting; and he is too full of long speeches. In his risible pieces in prose he is too farcical. But upon the whole it may be affirmed, that few writers ever attained so perfectly the true end of comedy His Tartuffe and Avare are his two capital productions.

ENGLISH COMEDY.

FROM the English theatre is naturally expected a great variety of original characters in comedy, and bolder strokes of wit and humour than from any other modern stage. Humour is in some degree peculiar to England. The freedom of the government, and the unrestrained liberty of English manners, are favourable to humour and singularity of character. In France the influence of a despotic court spreads uniformity over the nation. Hence comedy has a more amplified and freer vein in Britain than in France. But it is to be regretted, that the comic spirit of Britain is often disgraced by indecency and licentiousness.

The first age, however, of English comedy was not infected by this spirit. The plays of Shakespeare and Ben Johnson have no immoral tendency. The comedies of the former display a strong, creative genius ; but are irregular in conduct. They are singularly rich in characters and manners; but often descend to please the mob. Johnson is more regular, but stiff and pedantic; though not void of dramatic genius. Much fancy and invention, and many fine passages, are found in the plays of Beaumont and Fetcher. But in general they abound in romantic incidents, unnatural characters, and coarse allusions.

Change of manners has rendered the comedies of the last age obsolete. For it is the exhibition of prevailing modes and characters, that gives a charm to comedy. Thus Plautus was antiquated to the Romans in the days of Augustus. But to the honour of Shakespeare his Falstaff is still admired, and his Merry Wives of Windsor read with pleasure.

After the restoration of Charles II. the licentiousness which polluted the court and nation, seized upon comedy. The rake became the predominant character. Ridicule was thrown upon chastity and sobriety. At the end of the play, indeed, the rake becomes a sober man; but through the performance he is a fine gentle

man, and exhibits a picture of the pleasurable enjoyments of life. The spirit of comedy had the worst effect on youth of both sexes, and continued to the days of George II.

In the comedies of Dryden there are many strokes of genius; but he is hasty and careless. As his object was to please, he followed the current of the times, and gave way to indelicacy and licentiousness. His indecency was at times so gross as to occasion a prohibition of his plays on the stage.

After Dryden, flourished Cibber, Vanburgh, Farquhar and Congreve. Cibber has sprightliness and a pert vivacity; but his incidents are so forced and unnatural, that his performances have all sunk into obscurity, excepting the Careless Husband and the Provoked Husband. Of these the first is remarkable for the easy politeness of the dialogue; and it is a tolerable moral in its conduct. The latter, in which Cibber was assisted by Vanburgh, is perhaps the best comedy in the English language; and even to this it may be objected that it has a double plot. Its characters, however, are natural, and it abounds with fine painting and happy strokes of humour.

Wit, spirit and ease, characterise Sir John Vanburgh; but he is the most indelicate and immoral of all our comedians. Congreve undoubtedly possessed genius. He is witty and sparkling, and full of character and action. Indeed he overflows with wit; for it is often introduced unseasonably; and in general there is too much of it for well bred conversation. Farquhar is a light and gay writer; less correct and less brilliant than Congreve; but he has more ease, and much of the vis comica. Like Congreve he is licentious; and modesty must turn from them both with abhorrence. The French boast with justice of the superior decency of their stage, and speak of the English theatre with astonishment. Their philosophical writers ascribe the profligate manners of London to the indelicacy and corruption of English comedy.

Of late years a sensible reformation has taken place in English comedy. Our writers of comedy now appear ashamed of the indecency of their predecessors. They may be inferior to Farquhar and Congreve in spirit, ease and wit; but they have the merit of being far more innocent and moral.

To the French stage we are much indebted for this reformation. The introduction within a few years of a graver comedy in France, called the serious or tender comedy, has attracted the attention and approbation of our writers. Gaiety and ridicule are not excluded from this species of comedy; but it lays the chief stress on tender and interesting situations. It is sentimental, and touches the heart. It pleases not so much by the laughter it excites, as by the tears of affection and joy which it draws forth.

This form of comedy was opposed in France, as an unjustifiable innovation. It was objected by critics, that it was not founded on laughter and ridicule; but it is not necessary that all comedies be formed on one precise model. Some may be gay, some serious, and some may partake of both qualities. Serious and tender comedy has no right to exclude gaiety and ridicule from the stage. There are materials for both; and the stage is richer for the innovation. In general it may be considered as a mark of increasing politeness and refinement, when those theatrical exhibitions become fashionable, which are free from indelicate sentiment and an immoral tendency.