crates is introduced, and moft contemptuoufly treated. This fort of comedy, sparing neither gods nor men, was restrained by the magiftrates of Athens forbidding perfons to be named on the ftage. This led writers to do what is imitated by us; the characters and manners of known perfons were painted fo much to the life, that there could be no mistake. The fatire was indeed heightened by this regulation, as every one contributed to the fatire by detecting the perfons who were meant in the reprefentation. This was termed the middle comedy. But, as there ftill remained too great scope for obloquy and licentiousness, a law was made, prohibiting real events or incidents to be introduced upon the ftage. This law happily banished fatire against individuals, and confined it to manners and cuftoms in general. Obedient to this law are the comedies of Menander, Philemon, and Diphilus, who flourished about 300 years before the Chriftian æra. And this is termed the third ftage of Greek comedy. The comedies of Ariftophanes, which fill remain, err no less against taste than against decency. But we have good ground to believe, that

the

the Greek comedy was confiderably refined by Menander and his cotemporaries; tho' we must rely upon collateral evidence, having very few remains of them. Their works, however, were far from perfection, if we can draw any conjecture from their imitator Plautus, who wrote about a century later. Plautus was a writer of genius; and it may reasonably be fuppofed that his copies did not fall greatly short of the originals, in matters at least that can be faithfully copied. At that rate, they must have been extremely defective in their fubjects, as well as in the conduct of their pieces; for he fhows very little art in either. With respect to the former, his plots are wondrous fimple, very little varied, and very little interefting. The fubject of almost every piece is a young man in love with a mufic-girl, defiring to purchafe her from the procurer, and employing a favourite flave to cheat his father out of the price; and the different ways of accomplishing the cheat, is all the variety we find. In fome few of his comedies, the ftory rifes to a higher tone, the mufic-girl being difcovered to be the daughter of a free man, which removes every obftruc

d

tion to a marriage between her and her lover. With refpect to the conduct of his pieces, there is a miferable defect of

art.

Inftead of unfolding the fubject in the progress of the action, as is done by Terence and by every modern writer, Plautus introduces an actor, for no better purpose than to explain the ftory to the audience. In one of his comedies, a household-god is fo obliging as not only to unfold the fubject, but to relate beforehand every particular that is to be represented, not excepting the cataftrophe. Did not Plautus know, that it is pleasant to have our curiofity raifed about what will hap pen next? In the courfe of the action, perfons are frequently introduced who are heard talking to themselves on the open ftreet. One would imagine the Greeks to have been great babblers, when they could not refrain foliloquies even in public. Could Plautus have been fo artlefs in the conduct of his pieces, had a more perfect model been exhibited to him by Menander or the other authors mentioned?

It is obferved in Elements of Criticifm (a), that when a language has re-,

(a) Chap. 13.

ceived fome polish, and the meaning of words is tolerably afcertained, then it is that a play of words comes to be relished. At that period of the Roman language, Plautus wrote. His wit confifts almoft entirely in a play of words, an eternal jingle, words brought together that have nearly the fame found, with different meanings, and words of different founds that have the fame meaning. As the Greek language had arrived to its perfection many years before, fuch falfe wit may be justly afcribed to Plautus himself, not to the Greeks from whom he copied. What was the period of that baftard wit in Greece, I know not; but it appears not to have been antiquated in Homer's days, witness the joke in the Odyffey, where Ulyffes impofed upon Polyphemus, by calling him Houtis or No-man. Nor feems it to have been antiquated in the days of Euripides, who in his Cyclops repeats the fame filly joke. The Roman genius foon purged their compofitions of fuch infantine beauties; for in Terence, who wrote about fifty years later than Plautus, there is fcarce a veftige of them. The dialogue befide of Terence is more natural and correct, not a word

but

but to the purpose: Plautus is full of tautologies, and digreffions very little to the purpose. In a word, confidering the flow progress of arts, the Roman theatre, from the time of Plautus to that of Terence, made as rapid a progrefs as perhaps ever happened in any country. Ariftotle defines comedy to be an imitation of light and trivial fubjects provoking laughter. The comedies of Plautus correfpond accurately to that definition: those of Terence rife to a higher tone.

Befide the difadvantages of the mafk and pipe mentioned above, there are two causes that tended to keep back the Greek and Roman comedy from the perfection of its kind. The firft is the flow progrefs of fociety among thefe nations, occafioned by feparating from the female fex. Where women are excluded from fociety, it never can arrive at any degree of refinement, not to talk of perfection. In a society of men and women, every one endeavours to fhine every latent talent, and every variety of character, are brought to light. To judge from ancient writers, man was a very plain being. Tacitus wrote when fociety between the fexes was abundantly. VOL. I. M m

free;