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 BruyÃ¨re'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 BruyÃ¨re 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 BruyÃ¨re,[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 BruyÃ¨re 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 prefixâd A CRITICAL ESSAY on Characteristic-Writings. By Henry Gally, M.A. Lecturer of St. Paulâs Covent-Garden, and Rector of Wanden in Buckinghamshire. Respicere exemplar vitÃ¦ 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. _Dunstanâs_ 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 perusâd them, were of Opinion, that they deservâd to be publishâd, 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 observâd in such Compositions, and it contains some Reflexions on _Theophrastusâs_ and Mr. _de la Bruyereâs_ Performances in this Way. The Design of this at least is, I think, new. Mr. _Fabricius_ mentions a [A]Book, which, by its Title, shouâd bear some Relation to this Essay, but thoâ I have enquirâd after it pretty strictly, yet I never couâd get a Sight of it, nor have I conversed with any Person that had perusâd it. [A: Georgii Paschii Professoris Kiloniensis Diatriba de philosophia Characteristica & ParÃ¦netica. 4to. _Kilonie._ 1705. Vid. Fabric. Bib. GrÃ¦c. 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 composâd, and which gave Rise to those many Performances, that were afterwards attempted in the same Way. [B]Mr. _Menage_ has highly extollâd this Translation. _Elle est_, says he, _bien belle, & bien franÃ§oise, & montre que son Auteur entend parfaitement le Grec. Je puis dire que jây ay vu des Choses, que, peut etre, Faute dâAttention, je nâavois pas vues dans le Grec._ This is great; and it must be ownâd 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 allowâd. Besides, the Credit of the Books ending in _ana_ runs very low, and in particular the _Menagiana_ have been disownâd by Mr. _Menageâs_ 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 observâd in Mr. _de la Bruyereâ_s Translation are justly censurâd or not. [B: Menagiana. Ed. _Paris._ 1715. T. 4. p. 219.] [C: Mr. _du Tremblay_. TraitÃ© 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 shouâd 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 inducâd 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 âtis no more than a mean and insipid Translation of the _French_ of Mr. _de la Bruyere_, revisâd upon the _Latin_ of _Casaubon_, which answers almost verbally to the Original _Greek_. If this were a Matter of Importance, I wouâd here fully demonstrate it: For the Fact is so glaring, that thoâ 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_âs Translation must be ownâd to be polite: But politeness is not the only Qualification that is required in such a Translation. The learnâd 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 sufferâd 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 wouâd 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 passâd 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 shouâd 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. Considerâd barely as a Translator, I lay under no immediate Necessity of writing _Notes_, but then as I was highly concernâd, 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 proposâd 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 censurâd, 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 prescribâd to me, unless it is in the Chapter concerning _Superstition_. And even here, unless the Commentary had been somewhat copious, the Text it self wouâd have appearâd like a motly Piece of mysterious Nonsense. Thus much I thought my self obligâd to do in Justice to _Theophrastus_; and as for the Enlargements which I have made, over and above what wouâd have satisfyâd this Demand, they will not, âtis hopâd, 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 á½Ïá½²Ï Ïá½° á¼ÏÎºÎ±Î¼Î¼á½³Î½Î±, beyond the Bounds prescribâd; 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 âtis 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 obligâd, 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. _Budgellâs_ Words are as follow. _Theophrastus_, at the Time he writ, referrâd to nothing but what was well known to the meanest Person in _Athens_; but as Mr. _Bruyere_ has managâd it, by hinting at too many _Grecian_ Customs, a modern Reader is obligâd to peruse one or two _Notes_, which are frequently longer than the Sentence it self he wouâd 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 Bruyereâs_ 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 Learnâd 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 callâd so that conveys Instruction) is no more than what many persons, who have attained to no small share of Knowledg in the learnâd 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. âTis hopâd then that the _Notes_, that I have added, will be kindly receivâd. 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 receivâd 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 wouâd 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 disguisâd into Art, and how Art puts on the Appearance of Nature.--This Knowledge is great; âtis the Perfection of Moral Philosophy; âtis an inestimable Treasure: But yet if it shouâd fall into the Hands of one, who wants proper Abilities to communicate his Knowledge to the World, it wouâd be of no Service but to the Owner: It wouâd 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 concernâd in the Work, may presently discover himself; and those, who are unconcernâd 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 designâd 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, throâ that Labyrinth of the Passions, which fill the Heart of Man, and make him either a noble or a despicable Creature. For thoâ 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 wouâd not have answerâd their Expectation, and they wouâd have found, that this easy Work was more difficult than they, at first, imaginâd. The Features of every single Passion must be known; the Relation which that Passion bears to another, must be discoverâd; 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; âtis almost infinite; and yet without a Knowledge of these Things, âtwill 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. âTis 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 wouâd 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 desirâd; 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 judgâd of. It must be observâd 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 âtis 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 stainâd 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 expressâd in the following Verse, á¼© ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿ÏÏÎ·Î¼Î¿Ïá½»Î½Î· Î¼á½µÏÎ·Ï ÎºÎ±Îºá½¹ÏÎ·ÏÎ¿Ï á¼Ïá½±ÏÎ·Ï. This Doctrine may be made yet more sensible by applying it to the Practice of _Theophrastus_, whose Conduct, in this Respect, ought to be lookâd 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 convincâd, at the same Time, that _Theophrastus_ has not confounded by this Mixture the real Nature of Things, or transgressâd thereby, in any wise, the Rules of _Characteristic-Justice_. Again; Loquacity and an ill-timâd 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-timâd Behaviour; because thoâ 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 interspersâd 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 âtis 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 callâd Justice: And thoâ the Boundaries of it may be more extensive in those Works, in which a greater Range is allowâd to the Imagination, yet still, Invention and Fiction must be admitted in _Characteristic- Writings_, when the Characters designâd 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 confessâd, 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 observâd 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 markâd 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 shouâd, in a paraphrastical Manner, still insist upon the same Idea, the Work will immediately flag, the Character grow languid, and the Person characterisâd 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 observâd in _Characteristic-Writings_, which will keep up the good Humour of the Reader, althoâ he is, at the same Time, made sensible of his Errors. And this Artifice ought industriously to be pursuâd, 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 âtis generally unwelcome, both to themselves and to others, when the Point of Self-Interest is concernâd. And the Reason of it is, not because Truth is really ugly and deformâd, 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 prÃ¦cordia ludit, Callidus excusso Populum suspendere naso._ [F: Persius Sat. I. V. 116, &c.] ----With concealâd Design, Did crafty _Horace_ his low Numbers join: And, with a sly insinuating Grace, Laughâd at his Friend, and lookâd him in the Face: Wouâd raise a Blush, where secret Vice he found; And tickle, while he gently probâd the Wound. With seeming Innocence the Crowd beguilâd; But made the despârate Passes, when he smilâd. Mr. _Dryden_. This was the Character of one of the greatest _Roman_ Poets; and in this Art, amongst the Moderns, [G]_Benserade_ particularly excellâd, 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. á¼ÏÎ³á½±ÏÎ· Ïá½´Î½ á¼ Î¸Î¿ÏÎ¿Î¹á½·Î±Î½ ÏÎ±ÏÎ±ÎºÏá¿ÏÎ¹ ÏÎ±ÏÎµá¿, ÏÏ Î½Ïá½¹Î¼á¿³, á¼Î½Î¸Î·Ïá¿·, á¼ÏÎ¿Î»á½»Ïá¿³, á¼ÏÎ·Î»Î»Î±Î³Î¼á½³Î½á¿³ Ïá½±ÏÎ·Ï ÏÎ»Î¿Îºá¿Ï ÏÎµ ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏÏá½µÎ¼Î±ÏÎ¿Ï. âWhen you describe Manners you must use a plain, concise, florid, easy Style, free from all artificial Turns and Figures.â 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 concernâd 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 shouâd be so orderâd, that every perfect Sentence may contain a perfect Thought, and every perfect Thought may represent one Feature. Many other Particulars might have been observâd and recommended to those, who wouâd 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, wouâd 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 proposâd. 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 annexâd what he calls the Characters or Manners of the present Age. This Work was receivâd with Applause, and the Author gainâd 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_âs 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 examinâd by those Rules of Characteristic-Writing, which I have already mentionâd, 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 deceasâd 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 usâd. The Imagination, I own, may be allowâd 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 âtis 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 observâd in any Man. I do not know by what Name it may be callâd. _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 SocietÃ¨ & de la Conversation. Ad init.] The Character of _Cleanthes_, in the same [K]Chapter, is a Misrepresentation of Nature.--â_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: âTis impossible to meet with more Probity or Politeness. They part to Morrrow, and the Deed of their Separation is ready drawn up at the Notaryâs. There are, certainly, some Kinds of Merit that were never made to be together, and some Virtues that are incompatible.â But those who are endowâd with such good Qualities, as Mr. _de la Bruyere_ ascribes to _Cleanthes_ and his Wife, can never agree to a willful Separation. Nay, âtis a Contradiction to their Character to suppose that either of âem is faln into those Circumstances, which only can make a Separation become lawful and just. âTis 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_âs[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 lâHomme.] If we consult the Operations of our Soul, to discover the proper Causes of what is callâd _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 âtis 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 confessâd, 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; âtis 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 considerâd, that a Man, who has lost his Feeling, is not, in that Respect, a proper Subject for Ridicule, and that âtis no Jest to take away a Manâs 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 observâd. [M] _Respicere exemplar vitÃ¦ 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 alledgâd to his Praise; namely, [N]that his Characters are sometimes loaded, on purpose that they might not too nearly resemble the Persons designâd. [N: On trouve dans ses Characteres une severe Critique, des Expressions vives, des Tours ingenieux, des Peintures quelquefois chargeÃ©s exprÃ©s, pour ne les pas faire trop ressemblantes. _Discours prononcÃ© dans lâAcademie FranÃ§aise._ 1696.] âTis very dangerous, I confess, to make free with the Characters of particular Persons; for there are some Men in the World, who, thoâ they are not ashamâd of the Impropriety of their own Manners, yet are they easily offended at the public Notice which is taken of âem. But thoâ Mr. _de la Bruyere_ might have very good prudential Reasons for not making his Characters too particular, yet those Reasons cannot be urgâd, as a just Plea for his transgressing the Bounds of Characteristic-Justice, by making his Images unnatural. In every Kind of Writing there is something of an establishâd Nature 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 turnâd Nature into Grimace. The main Beauty of _Characteristic-Writings_ consists in a certain Life and Spirit, which the
{'title': 'A Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings by Henry Gally', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}