part of the century. But under the auspices of Charles II., who must
often have witnessed the originals while abroad, and in some instances
by his express command, translations were executed of the best and most
lively Spanish comedies.[8]

The favourite comedies therefore, after the Restoration, were such as
depended rather upon the intricacy than the probability of the plot;
rather upon the vivacity and liveliness, than on the natural expression
of the dialogue; and, finally, rather upon extravagant and grotesque
conception of character, than upon its being pointedly delineated, and
accurately supported through the representation. These particulars, in
which the comedies of Charles the Second's reign differ from the example
set by Shakespeare, Massinger and Beaumont and Fletcher, seem to have
been derived from the Spanish model. But the taste of the age was too
cultivated to follow the stage of Madrid, in introducing, or, to speak
more accurately, in reviving, the character of the _gracioso_, or clown,
upon that of London.[9] Something of foreign manners may be traced in
the licence assumed by valets and domestics in the English comedy; a
freedom which at no time made a part of our national manners, though
something like it may still be traced upon the Continent. These seem to
be the leading characteristics of the comedies of Charles the Second's
reign, in which the rules of the ancients were totally disregarded. It
were to be wished that the authors could have been exculpated from an
heavier charge,--that of assisting to corrupt the nation, by nourishing
and fomenting their evil passions, as well as by indulging and pandering
to their vices.

The theatres, after the Restoration, were limited to two in number; a
restriction perhaps necessary, as the exclusive patent expresses it, in
regard of the extraordinary licentiousness then used in dramatic