Chapter 3
Manners, yet are they easily offended at the public Notice which is taken of ’em. But tho’ Mr. _de la Bruyere_ might have very good prudential Reasons for not making his Characters too particular, yet those Reasons cannot be urg’d, 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 establish’d 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 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.