the invectives of his enemies so often called in question his qualification as a citizen, that they have made it doubtful. Some said, he was of Rhodes, others of Egena, a little island in the neighbourhood, and all agreed that he was a stranger. As to himself, he said that he was the son of Philip, and born in the Cydathenian quarter; but he confessed that some of his fortune was in Egena, which was probably the original seat of his family. He was, however, formally declared a citizen of Athens, upon evidence, whether good or bad, upon a decisive judgment, and this for having made his judges merry by an application of a saying of Telemachus*, of which this is the sense: "I am,

"as my mother tells me, the son of Philip; for

66

my

own part, I know little of the matter, for what "child knows his own father?" This piece of merriment did him as much good, as Archias received from the oration of Cicero†, who said that that poet was a Roman citizen. An honour which, if he had not inherited by birth, he deserved for his genius.

Aristophanes flourished in the age of the great men of Greece, particularly of Socrates and Euripides, both of whom he outlived. He made a great figure during the whole Peloponnesian war, not merely as a comick poet by whom the people were diverted, but as the censor of the government, as a man kept in pay by the state to reform it, and almost to act the part of the arbitrator of the publick. A particular account of his comedies

* Homer, Odyssey. + Orat. pro Archia Poeta. In the 85th year of the Olympiad, 437 before our Æra, and 317 of the foundation of Rome.

will best let us into his personal character as a poet, and into the nature of his genius, which is what we are most interested to know. It will, however, not be amiss to prepossess our readers a little by the judgment that had been passed upon him by the criticks of our own time, without forgetting one of the ancients that deserves great respect.

Aristophanes censured and

praised.

VIII. "Aristophanes," says father Rapin," is not exact in the contri"vance of his fables; his fictions are "not probable; he brings real cha"racters upon the stage too coarsely and too "openly. Socrates, whom he ridicules so much "in his plays, had a more delicate turn of burlesque than himself, and had his merriment with"out his impudence. It is true, that Aristo

66

phanes wrote amidst the confusion and licen"tiousness of the old comedy, and he was well "acquainted with the humour of the Athenians, "to whom uncommon merit always gave disgust, "and therefore he made the eminent men of his "time the subject of his merriment. But the too "great desire which he had to delight the people "by exposing worthy characters upon the stage, "made him at the same time an unworthy man ; " and the turn of his genius to ridicule was dis"figured and corrupted by the indelicacy and outrageousness of his manners. After all, his "pleasantry consists chiefly in new-coined puffy "language. The dish of twenty-six syllables, "which he gives in his last scene of his Female "Orators, would please few tastes in our days. "His language is sometimes obscure, perplexed, "and vulgar, and his frequent play with words,

66

"his oppositions of contradictory terms, his mix"ture of tragick and comick, of serious and bur"lesque, are all flat; and his jocularity, if you "examine it to the bottom, is all false. Menander “is diverting in a more elegant manner; his style "is pure, clear, elevated, and natural; he per"suades like an orator, and instructs like a philosopher; and if we may venture to judge upon "the fragments which remain, it appears that his "pictures of civil life are pleasing, that he makes every one speak according to his character, that

66

every man may apply his pictures of life to "himself, because he always follows nature, and "feels for the personages which he brings upon "the stage. To conclude, Plutarch, in his com"parison of these authors, says, that the Muse of Aristophanes is an abandoned prostitute, and "that of Menander a modest womau."

It is evident that this whole character is taken from Plutarch. Let us now go on with this remark of father Rapin, since we have already spoken of the Latin comedy, of which he gives us a description.

"With respect to the two Latin comick poets, "Plautus is ingenius in his designs, happy in his "conceptions, and fruitful of invention. He has, "however, according to Horace, some low jocu"larities, and those smart sayings, which made “the vulgar laugh, made him be pitied by men of higher taste. It is true, that some of his jests

66

66

are extremely good, but others likewise are very "bad. To this every man is exposed, who is too "much determined to make sallies of merriment; they endeavour to raise that laughter by hyperVOL. III.

K

"boles, which would not arise by a just represen"tation of things. Plautus is not quite so regu"lar as Terence in the scheme of his designs, or "in the distribution of his acts, but he is more "simple in his plot; for the fables of Terence are commonly complex, as may be seen in his An"drea, which contains two amours. It was im"puted as a fault to Terence, that to bring more "action upon the stage, he made one Latin co"medy out of two Greek; but then Terence "unravels his plot more naturally than Plautus, "which Plautus did more naturally than Aristo"phanes; and though Cæsar calls Terence but "one half of Menander, because, though he had "softness and delicacy, there was in him some "want of sprightliness and strength; yet he has "written in a manner so natural and so judicious, "that, though he was then only a copy, he is "now an original. No author has ever had a "more exact sense of pure nature. Of Cecilius, "since we have only a few fragments, I shall say nothing. All that we know of him is told us "by Varrus, that he was happy in the choice of "subjects."

66

Rapin omits many others for the same reason, that we have not enough of their works to qualify us for judges. While we are upon this subject, it will perhaps not displease the reader to see what that critick's opinion is of Lopes de Vega and Moliere. It will appear, that, with respect to Lopes de Vega, he is rather too profuse of praise that in speaking of Moliere, he is too parsimonious. This piece will, however, be of use to our design, when we shall examine to the bot

tom what it is that ought to make the character of comedy.

66

"No inan has ever had a greater genius for co"medy than Lopes de Vega the Spaniard. He "had a fertility of wit, joined with great beauty "of conception, and a wonderful readiness of composition; for he has written more than three "hundred comedies. His name alone gave repu "tation to his pieces; for his reputation was so "well established, that a work, which came from "his hands, was sure to claim the approbation of "the public. He had a mind too extensive to be "subjected to rules, or restrained by limits. For "that reason he gave himself up to his own ge"nius, on which he could always depend with "confidence. When he wrote, he consulted no "other laws than the taste of his auditors, and

regulated his manner more by the success of his "work than by the rules of reason. Thus he ❝ discarded all scruples of unity, and all the super"stitions of probability." (This is certainly not said with a design to praise him, and must be con、 nected with that which immediately follows.} "But as for the most part he endeavours at too "much jocularity, and carries ridicule to too much "refinement; his conceptions are often rather "happy than just, and rather wild than natural ; "for, by subtilizing merriment too far, it becomes "too nice to be true, and his beauties lose their "power of striking by being too delicate and

"acute.

"Among us, nobody has carried ridicule in "comedy farther than Moliere. Our ancient "comick writers brought no characters higher