A Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings - From his translation of The Moral Characters of Theophrastus (1725) by Henry Gally
page 34 of 53 (64%)
page 34 of 53 (64%)
|
The [Q]Characters of _Giton_ and _Phebon_ are humorous enough. And
they are allowâd to be kept within the just Bounds of Probability. But Mr. _de la Bruyere_ has heapâd up so many Particulars and unnecessary Circumstances, which do not convey any new Ideas, that the Characters grow languid and tedious.--_Giton_ is respected; every thing that he says or does is approved of. _Phebon_ is despisâd; no Notice is taken of what he says or does. The Reason of this Difference is not so mysterious, but that it may be told in less than two or three Pages. _Giton_ is rich, and _Phebon_ is poor. [Q: C. id. ibid. feré.] Sometimes there is such a Confusion in Mr. _de la Bruyereâs_ Designs, that one cannot easily discover whether he intended to draw the Character of a particular Person, or to make a Picture of some prevailing Vice, or only a moral Reflexion.--Such is the [R]Article of _Zenobia_. Was it designâd for the Character of _Zenobia_? But âtis rather a Description of the Magnificence, and beautiful Situation of the Palace, which she was then building. Or was it designâd to censure and lash the Publicans of the Age, for the Extortions which they practisâd, and the immense Riches which they amassâd by Fraud and Oppression? But this Satir comes in only by the by, and in a very jejune Manner. Or lastly, was it intended only for a moral Reflexion on the sudden Revolutions and Vicissitudes of Fortune? But the Length of this Article is inconsistent with the nature of a Reflexion; and if any thing like this was intended, it must come in as the á¼Ïιμύθιον, the Moral of the Fable; which will make the Contents of this Article, still more different from the nature of a Character, than any thing that has yet been mentioned. |
|