description of dispositions and temperaments; and in the hands of La
Bruyère 'the manners of the century' were the habits and varieties
of human nature. In England the two kinds existed side by side. They
correspond to the two methods of the drama. Begin with the individual,
but draw him in such a way that we recognize in him our own or others'
qualities; or begin with the qualities shared by classes of people,
embody these in a person who stands for the greatest common measure of
the class, and finally--and only then--let him take on his distinctive
traits: these are methods which are not confined to the drama, and
at all stages of our literature have lived in helpful rivalry. Long
before France had her La Bruyère, England had her Hall, Overbury, and
Earle.[15] The Theophrastan character was at its best in this country
at the beginning of the seventeenth century when the historical
character was still in its early stages; and it was declining when
the historical character had attained its full excellence. They cannot
always be clearly distinguished, and they are sometimes purposely
blended, as in Butler's character of 'A Duke of Bucks,' where
the satire on a man of pronounced individuality is heightened by
describing his eccentricities as if they belonged to a recognized
class.

The great lesson that the Theophrastan type of character could teach
was the value of balance and unity. A haphazard statement of
features and habits and peculiarities might suffice for a sketch,
but perspective and harmony were necessary to a finished portrait.
It taught that the surest method in depicting character was first
to conceive the character as a whole, and then to introduce detail
incidentally and in proper subordination. But the same lesson could
have been learned elsewhere. It might have been learned from the
English drama.