From these reasons, I think it not difficult to account for the coarseness of ancient wit.

The

which were in great credit with the antients, are of the nature of dramas, HOIKOI AOгOI, as Aristotle would call them. In which the dialogifts, who are real perfonages as in the old comedy, give a lively, and fometimes exaggerated, expreffion of their own characters. Under this idea of a Symposium we are prepared to expect bad characters as well as good. Nothing in the kind of compofition itself confined the writer to the latter; and the decorum of a feftal converfation, which, in a republic especially, would have a mixture of fatire in it, seemed to demand the former. We fee then the undoubted purpose of Xenophon in the perfons of his JESTER and SYRACUSIAN; and of Plato, in those of ARISTOPHANES, and fome others. Where we may further take notice, that, to prevent the abuse and misconstruction, to which these personated discourses are ever liable, Socrates is brought in to correct the looseness of them, in both dialogues, and, in fome measure, doth the office of the dramatic chorus, BONIS FAVENDI. But it is the less strange, that the moderns have not apprehended the genius of these Sympofia, when Athenæus, who profeffedly criticifes them, and, one would think, had a better opportunity of knowing their real character, hath betrayed the groffeft ignorance about them.—I can but just hint these things, which might afford curious matter for a differtation. But enough is faid to let the intelligent reader into the true fecret of these convivial dialogues, and to explain the ground of the encomium here paffed upon one of them,

free genius of the Greek and Roman conftitution was unquestionably its main spring and support. But, when this character of their government was feconded by the freedom of their demagogues, the petulance of the ftage, and the uncontrouled licence of recurring festival folemnities, it was no wonder, the illiberal manner fo thoroughly infected all ranks and degrees of the people, as by no after-diligence and refinement wholly to be removed. And this theory is indeed confirmed by fact. For, when now the tyranny of one man had ingroffed the power, and oppreffed the liberties, of Greece, their ftage refined, their wit polished, and Menander wrote. And though a thorough reform was never made in the Roman ftage, partly, as Quinctilian thinks, from the intractability of their language, but chiefly, it may be, as to the point in question, from the long continuance of their rude farcical fhews, yet fomething like this appears to have followed upon the lofs of their freedom; as is plain from the improved delicacy of their later critics; who, as Quinctilian and Plutarch, are very profuse in their encomiums on Menander, and the new comedy; whereas we find little faid of it by the Auguftan writers, who feem generally to have preferred the coarfer wit and pleafantry of the old. The ftate of modern wit too confirms this account.

For

1

it has grown up, for the most part, under limited monarchies, in which their fcenical entertainments were more moderate, or for plain reafons muft lefs affect the public tafte. Whenever therefore a turn for letters has prevailed, a poignant, but liberal, kind of wit hath generally fprung up with it. Where it is worth observing, the growing tyranny in some states hath either extinguished it entirely, or refined it into an effeminate and timid delicacy, as the growing licentiousness in others hath funk it into a rude and brutal coarsenefs; whilft, by a due mixture of liberty and letters, we have feen it acquire a proper temperament at home, and, as managed by our beft writers, exhibit a fpecimen of that ftrong, yet elegant ridicule, which hath never yet been equalled by any other nation in the world.

275. IGNOTUM TRAGICAE GENUS INVENISSE CAMENAE, &c.] The poet, having just remarked the negligence of the Roman writers in two or three inftances, and at the fame time recommended to them the fuperior care and accuracy of the Greeks (all which is elegantly preparatory to the last divifion of the epiftle) proceeds in a fhort view of the Greek drama, to infinuate, as well the fuccefsful pains of the Greek writers, as the real ftate of the Roman

ftage;

ftage; the complete glory of which could only be expected, as immediately follows, from a fpirit of diligence and correctness. As this whole connexion is clear and cafy, fo is the peculiar method, in which it is conducted, extremely proper. 1. To fhew, how great the advantage of their fituation was over that of the Greeks, he obferves, that the latter had the whole conftitution of the drama to invent and regulate; which yet, by the application and growing experience of their poets, was foon effected; their tragedy, all rude and shapeless as it was in the cart of Thefpis, appearing in its juft form and proportion on the ftage of Æfchylus; and their comedy alfo (which, from that time, began to be cultivated) afferting its proper character, and, but for the culpable omiffion of a chorus, reaching the full extent and perfection of its kind.

2. To fhew, what still remained to them, he brings down the hiftory of tragedy no lower than Æfchylus; under whom it received its due form, and all the effentials of its nature, yet ftill wanted, to its absolute perfection, the further accuracy and correctness of a Sophocles. And, for their comedy, he hints the principal defect of that; its omiffion, after the manner of the new comedy, of the chorus. There is great addrefs in this conduct, The cenfure also im

cr

plied in it, is perfectly juft. For, 1. the character of the Roman tragedy, in the times of Horace, was exactly that of Æfchylus. Æfchylus, fays Quinctilian, was the first, “ qui protulit "tragoedias," i. e. who compofed true legitimate tragedies, fublimis et gravis et grandiloquus fæpe ufque ad vitium; fed rudis in plerifque et incompofitus, [L. x. c. 1.] the very defcription, which Horace gives [2 Ep. i. 165.] of the Roman tragedy:

natura fublimis et acer, Nam fpirat tragicum fatis et feliciter audet; Sed turpem putat infcitus metuitque lituram.

2. The state of their comedy, as managed by their beft writers, Afranius and Terence, was, indeed, much more complete; yet wanted the chorus, which, in the judgment of the poet, it feems, was equally neceffary to the perfection of this, as of the other drama.

3. But the application is made in express

terms:

Nil intentatum noflri liquere poetæ, &c.

i. e. our poets, as well as the Greek, have, in fome degree, applied themselves to improve and regulate the ftage. In particular, a late innovation, in taking their subjects, both of tragedy and comedy, from domeftic facts, is highly to be applauded, Their fole disadvantage is, a ne

glect