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 Fletcher. But, in general, they abound in dramatic incidents, unnatural characters, and coarse allusions. Change of manners has rendered the come. dies 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. Bat to the honor of Shakspeare, 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 pleasumble enjoyments of life. This 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 tolerably 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 humor. Wit, spirit, and ease, characterize 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 abhorence: 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 com edy 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 gaity and ridicule from the stage. There are materials for both; and the stage is richer for the innovotion. In general, it may be considered as a mark of increasing politeness and refine. ment, when those theatrical exhibitions become fashionable, which are free from indelicate sentiment and an immoral tendency. QUESTIONS. 1. What is naturally expected from the English theatre? 2. Why is it expected? 3. What is to be regretted in English comedy? 4. Was this the case in the first age of English comedy? 5. What is said of Shakspeare's comedies? 6. What is said of Johnson as compared with Shakspeare? 7. What is said of Beaumont and Fletcher? 8. What has rendered the comedies of the last age obsolete? 9. What gives a charm to comedy? 10. What evil was there to comedy on the restoration of Charles II.? 11. What is said of Dryden's comedies ? 12. Who flourished after Dryden ? 13. How do the present English writers of comedy view their predecessors? 14. What may be considered a mark of increasing politeness and refinement? |