A character, or that which distinguishes one man from all others, cannot be supposed to consist of one particular virtue, or vice, or passion only; but it is a composition of qualities which are not contrary to one another in the same person thus the same man may be liberal and valiant, but not liberal and covetous; so in a comical character, or humour, (which is an inclination to this or that particular folly,) Falstaff is a liar, and a coward, a glutton, and a buffoon, because all these qualities may agree in the same man. Yet it is still to be observed, that one virtue, vice, and passion, ought to be shewn in every man, as predominant over all the rest; as covetousness in Crassus, love of his country in Brutus; and the same in characters which are feigned.

The chief character or hero in a tragedy, as I have already shewn, ought in prudence to be such a man, who has so much more in him of virtue than of vice, that he may be left amiable to the audience, which otherwise cannot have any concernment for his sufferings; and it is on this one character that the pity and terrour must be principally, if not wholly, founded: a rule which is extremely necessary, and which none of the criticks that I know, have fully enough discovered to us. For terrour and compassion work but weakly, when they are divided into many persons. If Creon had been the chief character in OEDIPUS, there had neither been terrour nor compassion moved; but only detestation of the man, and joy

for his punishment; if Adrastus and Eurydice had been made more appearing characters, then the pity had been divided, and lessened on the part of Oedipus; but making Oedipus the best and bravest person, and even Jocasta but an under-part to him, his virtues and the punishment of his fatal crime, drew both the pity and the terrour to himself.

By what had been said of the manners it will be easy for a reasonable man to judge, whether the characters be truly or falsely drawn in a tragedy; for if there be no manners appearing in the characters, no concernment for the persons can be raised; no pity or horrour can be moved, but by vice or virtue; therefore, without them no person can have business in the play. If the inclinations be obscure, it is a sign the poet is in the dark, and knows not what manner of man he presents to you; and consequently you can have no idea, or very imperfect, of that man; nor can judge what resolutions he ought to take, or what words or actions are proper for him. Most comedies made up of accidents, or adventures, are liable to fall into this errour; and tragedies, with many turns, are subject to it: for the manners never can be evident, where the surprises of fortune take up all the business of the stage, and where the poet is more in pain to tell you what happened to such a man, than what he was. It is one of the excellencies of Shakspeare, that the manners of his persons are generally

apparent, and you see their bent and inclinations. Fletcher comes far short of him in this, as indeed he does almost in every thing; there are but glimmerings of manners in most of his comedies, which run upon adventures; and in his tragedies, Rollo, Otto, the King-and-No-King, Melantius," and many others of his best, are but pictures shewn you in the twilight; you know not whether they resemble vice or virtue; and they are either good, bad, or indifferent, as the present scene requires it. But of all poets, this commendation is to be given to Ben Jonson, that the manners, even of the most inconsiderable persons in his plays, are every where apparent.

By considering the second quality of manners, which is that they be suitable to the age, quality, country, dignity, &c. of the character, we may likewise judge whether a poet has followed nature. In this kind Sophocles and Euripides have more excelled among the Greeks, than Æschylus; and Terence more than Plautus among the Romans : thus Sophocles gives to Oedipus the true qualities of a king, in both those plays which bear his name; but in the latter, which is the OEDIPUS COLONCUS, he lets fall on purpose his tragick style; his hero speaks not in the arbitrary tone, but remembers, in the softness of his complaints, that

Melantius is a character in THE MAID'S TRAGEDY; Otto, in ROLLO, or, as it was sometimes entitled-THE BLOODY BROther.

he is an unfortunate old man; that he is banished from his country, and persecuted by his next relations. The present French poets are generally accused, that wheresoever they lay the scene, or in whatsoever age, the manners of their heroes are wholly French: Racine's Bajazet is bred at Constantinople, but his civilities are conveyed to him by some secret passage from Versailles into the Seraglio. But our Shakspeare, having ascribed to Henry the Fourth the character of a king, and of a father, gives him the perfect manners of each relation, when either he transacts with his son, or with his subjects. Fletcher, on the other side, gives neither to Arbaces, nor to his king in THE MAID'S TRAGEDY, the qualities which are suitable to a monarch; though he may be excused a little in the latter, for the king there is not uppermost in the character; it is the lover of Evadne, who is king only in a second consideration; and though he be unjust, and has other faults which shall be nameless, yet he is not the hero of the play. It is true, we find him a lawful prince, (though I never heard of any king that was in Rhodes,) and therefore Mr. Rymer's criticism stands good,—that he should not be shewn in so vicious a character. Sophocles has been more judicious in his ANTIGONA; for though he represent in Creon a bloody prince, yet he makes him not a lawful king, but an usurper; and Antigona herself is the heroine of the tragedy: but when Philaster wounds Arethusa and the boy, and Perigot his mistress in

THE FAITHFUL SHEPHERDESS, both these are contrary to the character of manhood: nor is Valentinian managed much better; for though Fletcher has taken his picture truly, and shewn him as he was, an effeminate voluptuous man, yet he has forgotten that he was an emperor, and has given him none of those royal marks which ought to appear in a lawful successor of the throne. If it be enquired, what Fletcher should have done on this occasion; ought he not to have represented Valentinian as he was ;-Bossu shall answer this question for me, by an instance of the like nature: Mauritius, the Greek emperor, was a prince far surpassing Valentinian, for he was endued with many kingly virtues; he was religious, merciful, and valiant, but withal he was noted of extreme covetousness, a vice which is contrary to the character of a hero, or a prince; therefore, says the critick, that emperor was no fit person to be represented in a tragedy, unless his good qualities were only to be shewn, and his covetousness, which sullied them all, were slurred over by the artifice of the poet.-To return once more to Shakspeare; no man ever drew so many characters, or generally distinguished them better from one another,' excepting only Jonson. I will

Here our author has made some amends for his. unjust censure of Shakspeare in this respect, in a former Essay. See p. 195. "His CHARACTERS (Mr. Pope truly observes), are so much Nature herself, that it is a sort of